The big question I ask, on JB's behalf is this - who was the unidentified male that PC Myall saw at whf, at 3:45am? If that male person was Ralph Bamber, how could JB have already shot him no less than 8 times and killed him in the kitchen (how did RB get downstairs after the sighting)?
If the male person who was seen by PC Myall was not RB, why did EP set out to make JB the person who had gone into whf to kill everyone, and stage manage the scene to make it look like Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life? If PC Myall saw an unidentified male person at the scene, at 3:45am, then th circumstances of that sighting have a direct bearing on how JB was framed for the murders as though he himself had carried them out?
I demand answers to these questions from EP, from the DPP / CPS..
But EP initially set out a suicide/murderers - as documented to the world wide press.
Suicide questioned later by silencer, SC's forensic results etc.
If the contention is that EP arrived at WHF and from the off they (and all subsequently associated professionals + family etc) decided it was get JB year... then supporting evidence must be posted.
To Mike Tesko - you state we are pressuring you. The only person pressuring you is you, due to asserting new certainities that contradict your old certainties.
If you are forbidden from posting certain documents say so, but confirm who has them and when they received them.
It just seems strange if you are allowed to quote material yet not post it - can you see that?
It would also be unfair as it is only natural that you'd want to share any exciting/new developments, but being unable to post make you a sitting target.
I don't see what would be wrong in Mike saying:
I believe I have evidence to the contrary that when I am granted permission to expose will change your assertions, but until I can do so, based on the available evidence, you're right".
It seems so difficult for him to say.
I do accept Mike has access to much material most of us don't (or have not had years to collect), but still, that does not grant license to expect everybody to believe every word and take it all at face value.
Given the assertions being made when there IS evidence, and still there's too much ambiguity it give me not faith at all that stuff we can't see is being interpreted any better.
I'm currently of the opinion that Mike's not really faced a concerted opposition, or evaluation of his assertions, and now that's happening, much is found wanting.
Mike's unwavering view of JB's innocence (tainted by his own unfortunate experiences with the Police) are causing him to interpret evidence only in ways that might help reach his conclusion, rather than form a conclusion based on the evidence.
It's a crying shame really, because as cynical as I am, I can still see a slim hope for JB. It's small mercy Mike's not representing him. They'd both end up in a cell and quite possibly, one of them would be padded.
